Who Moved My Congress?

This week's readings examine both sides of the cyber utopia debate.  In "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" author Jaron Lanier laments the advent of what he calls "the hive mind." The hive mind by Lanier's definition is nothing more than old and unsuccessful ideas of collectivism re-packaged for the digital age.  Lanier views the trend of online content aggregation and meta aggregation as the death of critical thinking, informative journalism and public discourse. I think he may be on to something.

Particularly insightful in Lanier's article was his observation of collectivism in pop culture.  I do think it highly ironic that in some 10 seasons of broadcast American Idol has failed to produce one...well American idol. I suppose some would disagree and cite the popularity of Kelly Clarkson. But I doubt Miss Clarkson will sell out Madison Square Garden anytime soon and I certainly wouldn't call her contributions to the musical lexicon monumental, however catchy they may be.  Lanier is right, artists like John Lennon, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, Grandmaster Flash and Bob Dylan would never win a competition like AI because they are all innovators and the very mainstreamy-ness of AI places zero value on innovation. In attempting to develop an "everyman's artist" complete with a built in fan base (i.e. the people who vote for the contentestents) the producers of have produced a package that no one actually wants to buy. Witness the hive mind at work and it's particular failing. The hive mind isn't neccessarily the brightest one.

On the other side of the argument we have Pierre Levy and his work "Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace."  Mr Levy fairly swoons with admiration for the possibilities afforded mankind by collective political activity in cyberspace. In the utopia that he envisions direct democracy becomes a distinct reality with literally every man, woman and child having the ability to represent themselves politically by voting online. Gone are the antiquated ideas of representative democracy and political parties. Congress is no longer even neccessary in in Levy's vision. (I can think of 534 individuals in Washington who might take particular issue with Levy's vision.)  Directly opposite Lanier, Levy seems particularly taken with the notion of collectivity and its implications for personal freedom. So who is right?

While both gentlemen have valid points I think I'll have to give this one to Mr. Lanier.  If only because I think the design of Levy's Intelligent Cities is rather utopian in scope.  Admitttedly I am only about half way through the reading at this point so I apologize if my critique is a little premature. (However I reserve the right to revise my views in the near future.) Levy envisions a political system in which everyone participates with equal zeal and all involved make intelligent, informed choices. Sounds pretty wonderful, right?  However, where Mr. Levy fails is that he doesn't allow for the personal apathy, ignrance, shortsightedness and biases that Lanier is all to aware of.  "...an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions." (Lanier 9) Can we say Bush administration? How about the Birther Movement? I do realize how cynical my analysis sounds and that is the particular failing of Levy's collective intelligence.  His analysis is flawed in that it relies on an electorate that is completely informed and personally invested in political outcomes.  I think he may be asking a little too much in an age of severly fragmented attention spans.

Open-Source: Public Enemy #1

I was searching Mashable recently looking for interesting story ideas when I came across this tasty little nugget: "Lobby Group Says Open-Source Threatens Capitalism." The piece details the efforts of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, whom we read about in "Information Feudalism", and who also broadly represents the MPAA among others, to curtail the popularity of open-source software globally.  The group recently requested that developed and developing nations including Brazil, India and Indonesia be placed on an international watchlist, which "effectively puts those countries on a shortlist of governments considered “enemies of capitalism” who aren’t doing enough to protect intellectual property abroad." A little harsh, don't you think?

The major bone of contention for the alliance is the tendency for these nation's governments to use, or advocate the use of, open-source software in their governmental departments. What could be no more than a simple cost cutting measure, in the wake of the worst global economic recession since the great depression, has effectively been labeled...wait for it...communism.  The fifties called, they want their Red Scare back.

As we are exploring the issues surrounding intellectual property this week I thought this article a fitting example of the "global expansion of intellectual property systems" (p.5) that Drahos and Braithwaite detail in Information Feudalism.  What I find particularly ironic is that in sanctioning these nations the Alliance is actually behaving like a communist dictatorship as they are essentially stifling competition. The race towards innovation spurred by the open-source movement benefits both producers and consumers. Isn't market competition- which is precisely what open-source software represents in the intellectual property battle - the very cornerstone of capitalism? As such, shouldn't it be encouraged?

The dubious victory of literally killing market competition is ultimately a losing battle for all concerned. Especially when the mere suggestion of cost effective alternatives can be equated with subverting the entire U.S. economic system. Unfortunately as long as profits speak louder than innovation and consumer satisfaction, powerful lobbyist groups like the IIPA will reign like medieval feudal lords - and we get to be the lowly serfs. Well, I must go now. I have to delete all my bookmarks for free online photo editing tools. I would hate to be labeled a terrorist just because I'm too poor to afford PhotoShop.

[img credit: David Erickson]

On Networks and Sovereigns

So I am reading this week's assignment "The Exploit: A Theory of networks" and the following passage jumps out at me:

"By contrast contemporary political thought often defines sovereignty not as the power to command or execute a law but as the power to claim exceptions to the rule.  The sovereign ruler occupies a paradoxical position, at once within the law (in that the ruler forms part of the body politic) and yet outside the law (in that the sovereign can decide when the law no longer applies). Sovereignty is, then, not power or force but the ability to decide - in particular the ability to decide what constitutes an exceptional situation, one that calls for a "state of exception" and a suspension of the law. (p. 38)

Notwithstanding the usual suspects, historical and contemporary political leaders, I immediately thought of celebrities when I read this. Yes, I applied network theory to Hollywood. I'll cover the political leaders shortly.

One of the most salient Hollywood examples that comes to mind is the recent case of Roman Polanski. Here we have the sovereign, Mr. Polanski fighting extradition on some very serious charges. The basis of defense is pretty much "I'm famous and all that happened a long time ago. Therefore the law shouldn't apply to me." Around this sovereign has arisen a network of supporters - those 700 or so (depending on which reports you read) actors, actresses, directors, producers, etc. who signed a petition demanding his immediate release. The crux of their argument, "He's enormously talented, that really bad thing happened a long time ago, and further we don't like the way he was apprehended. Therefore the law should make an exception."  I will withhold judgement as to the validity (or lack thereof) of these arguments. Ok, maybe I won't.

Now this network, much like the networks Galloway and Thacker present, isn't organized or governed by one central figure. Not even Polanski. The nodes - the actors, et al - are are a particularly heterogeneous bunch whose connections to each other outside of the petition may or may not exist. I suppose you could consider their connection to Hollywood or the film industry as a constant, but to each other, not so much. Further like the Galloway/Thacker model, the nodes may or may not even be directly connected to the sovereign.  

I think it is the idea of the "sovereign" that I find particularly fascinating. Examples of sovereign like figures abound in both contemporary and historical culture.  Another literal sovereign that comes to mind is King Henry VII. As an actual sovereign King Henry attempted to break a network - the Church of England - so that he could do what was previously un-doable; divorce his wife and marry his mistress.  When the King found himself subject to the rules of the church and therefore unable to legitimately divorce his wife he did what any good sovereign would do. He invalidated the church. From where did he derive the power for such an invalidation? He was king, and as such should be above the law, even that law of the church. Here we see network theory in action once again. Though this may be what Galloway and Thacker refer to as a "disciplinary" society ( p. 36) or the beginning of the breakdown of one.

So how does network theory apply to new media. I think the most obvious candidate for examination is the Internet. It functions cooperatively yet has no single overarching, governing body - though recently net neutrality opponents have attempted to grab control. It's myriad nodes - either net users, or the actual web of disparate servers - aren't necessarily connected to each other in any collective sort of organization. What I find particularly interesting is the sphere of influence exerted by particularly powerful nodes. I'm referring to human nodes in this meaning. I wonder if the net will produce digital sovereigns that mimic or rival the sovereigns of yore? Perhaps it already has.

What Is and Isn't New Media (Includes a Case Study Overview)

This week we were tasked with reading Lev Manovich's "The Language of New Media." In the text Manovich explores both the cultural and historical symbols synonymous with new media objects and traces how they came to be such. For instance why is it that the home screen on one's PC is called a "desktop"? Or how it came to be that our work output takes the form and hierarchy of "files"? Well, in a nutshell, this symbology may have more to do with the original function of the computer as a work tool than the media playground that is the PC of today.  However, let's take a brief look at a media object that I know I can't live without and see if it is actually new media as according to Manovich - the iPod, or iTunes as it were.

So beginning on page 27 Manovich enumerates exactly what the properties of new media objects are. They are:

1. Numerical Representation: All new media objects, whether created from scratch on computers or converted from analog media sources, are composed of digital code; they are numerical representations. (p. 27)

2. Modularity: Media elements, be they images, sounds, shapes, or behaviors, are represented as collections of discrete samples (pixels, polygons, voxels, characters, scripts). (p. 30) Because all elements are stored independently, they can be modified at any time without having to change the... (p.30)

3. Automation: The numerical coding of media (principal 1) and the modular structure of a media object (principle 2) allow for the automation of many operations involved in media creation, manipulation, and access. Thus human intentionality can be removed from the creative process, at least in part. (p.32)

4. Variability: A new media object is not something fixed once and for all, but something that can exist in different, potentially infinite versions. (p. 36)

5. Transcoding: Similarly, new media in general can be thought of as consisting of two distinct layers - the "cultural layer" and the "computer layer." (p. 46) Because new media is created on computers, distributed via computers, and stored and archived on computers the logic of a computer can be expected to significantly influence the traditional cultural logic of media; that is , we may expect that the computer layer will affect the cultural layer. (p. 46)

Now, you may be wondering why certain portions of these quotes have been placed in bold type. Well there is a method to my madness. I have combed my iTunes library and put together an an EMAC 6300 playlist consisting of four very distinct songs.  (Also, if you're interested, it can be downloaded on iTunes as an iMix for $3.96.)The tracks are all quite different in their styles, artists and genres. It is my contention that per Manovich's specifications, particularly the sections I have highlighted in bold, only one of these tracks actually fits the definition of "new media."

That's right, just one.  My methodology was simple. First of all I examined the tracks as content and form separately. If we examine them for form alone then all of the songs would qualify as new media simply by virtue of their interface, ie digital tracks in a digital playlist.  However, if we examine the songs as content, paying specific attention to production, then our outcome is quite different.  When I applied Manovich's principles the tracks that failed the new media test did so on the criteria that is presented in bold type.

Once iTunes releases my list publicly I will include a link for preview. However, if you want to preview the tracks individually they are:

Symphony No.3 in E-flat Major - Artist: Nicolaus Esterhazy Sinfonia, composed by Beethoven
One Step Beyond -  Artist: Karsh Kale
Stay By My Side (Acoustic) - Artist: Mishka
Blue In Green - Artist: Miles Davis

In the meantime, feel free to ruminate on the essence of musical composition in the digital age.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the iTunes iMix. EMAC 6300 New Media Objects Discussion Playlist

2nd UPDATE: Here is a link to my Prezi. Music and New Media: A Critical Look at Manovich's Criteria